AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kulithalai, in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2008 dated 02.12.2010.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the records carefully.
It is a case of fatal. The accident occurred on 16.09.2007 and in consequence to the same, the victim, namely, Raja, died. His parents, as claimants, have filed the claim petition. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,84,500/-, as compensation and aggrieved over the same, the appellant / insurance company is before this Court.
The manner of the accident as well as the liability are not disputed, however, the quantum is disputed. The first contention of the appellant/insurance company is that the tribunal has erred in fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, when there is no evidence to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the decision reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 459 (SC) in the case of Syed Sidiq etc., v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., has held that the reasonable monthly income of a labour in an unorganized sector doing his own business would be Rs.6,500/-. Here, in the case on hand, the deceased was working as a Mason at the time of accident and the tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, which, in my considered opinion, is very reasonable and therefore, this Court is not able to accede with the said contention of the appellant.
The next ground emphasized by the appellant is that the tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses, as the deceased was a bachelor, however, the tribunal has deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant prays for interference.
However, on a careful perusal of the records, it is seen that the tribunal has fixed the multiplier as 14, by taking into account the age of the claimants/parents of the deceased, which is against the settled position of law. It is seen that the age of the deceased, at the time of accident, was 21 years. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be 18.
It is a simple math that by fixing the multiplier as 18 and making the deduction towards personal expenses as 1/2, the overall compensation will be on the higher side. Therefore, the award passed by the tribunal is reasonable and the same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
In view of the foregoing discussions, this civil miscellaneous appeal is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. The award passed by the tribunal stands confirmed. No costs.